> We use high level languages because they improve reading comprehension and save us time when writing. Which completely contradicts your earlier point. Why n

> We use high level languages because they improve reading comprehension and save us time when writing. Which completely contradicts your earlier point. Why not just get copilot write assembly for you? Or, spit out raw machine code? Oh, that’s right, because you need to check that it hasn’t fucked something up. Which, when there’s a ton of boilerplate, is hard. It’s arguable that programming language evolution stopped around the time Java was released (barring a few sprinkles here and there, like async/await, affine/linear types, etc.) We haven’t had a major leap in language power for decades (not like the leap from assembly to procedural languages) - I believe it’s because Java popularised evolution through libraries - and for a long time that was fine, even if it did lead to language evolution stagnating. But now we’ve hit a complexity threshold that demands an abstraction leap, but instead of looking for that abstraction leap we’re getting a computer to generate boilerplate for us, hoping it will dig us out of the complexity hole. We’re still ways off having a computer maintain a complex code base over many years. So humans still have to do that. It’d be much easier if we remove the incidental complexity. “The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.” — Edsger W. Dijkstra